2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-16-2006 

# S amp ath a ch ar v

. F ed K e mp e r Li fe P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-3433

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S amp ath a ch ar v

. F e d Ke mpe r L i fe " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 887. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/887NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 05- 3433

___________ KAKKA DAS AN S AM P AT HAC HAR

v. F E DE RA L KE M P E R L I F E AS S UR ANC E CO M P ANY, A p p e llan t.

________________________ ON AP P E AL F RO M T HE UNI T E D S T AT E S DI S T RI CT CO UR T F OR T HE

E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA D i s t r i ctC our tJ udge: T he H onor abl e J uan R . Sanchez

( C i vi l N o. 03- 05905)

___________ A r gued J une 7, 2006 B e f o re : A M B R O , F U E N T E S , a n d G R E E N B E R G , C ir c u it J u d g e s .

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J une 16, 2006)

Da n i e l J . Du g a n ( AR GUE D) B ruce Bel l i ngham2

Spect orG adon & R os en 1635 M arketSt r eet , 7t h Fl oor Seven Penn C ent er Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E K A K K A D A S A N S A M P A T H A C H A R , M .D . Bry a n D. Bo l t o n ( AR GUE D) M i chae l P. C unni ngham M . D avi d M al oney Funk & B ol t on 36 Sout h C har l es St r eet , 12t h Fl oor B al t i m or e, M D 21201 M i chae l J . G l as heen M cC art er & E ng l i sh 1735 M arketSt r eet , Sui t e 700 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT F E DE RA L KE M P E R L I F E AS S UR ANC E CO .

________________________

OP I NI ON

________________________ FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge. Pl ai nt i ff K akkada s an Sampat hacha ri ni t i at ed thi s act i on as s ert i ng br eac h of contr actand bad f

ai t h agai ns tdefe ndantFeder al K emperL i fe A s s ur ance C om panyw hen Feder al K emperr efus ed t o payon a l i fe i ns ur ance pol i cyfol l ow i ng the al l eged dr ow ni ng of pl ai nt i ff’ s w i fe, PannathpurJ ay l aks hm i Sam pathacha r , i n 2001. A j urytr i al w as hel d,T hi s act i on w as or i gi nal l yfi l ed i n s t at e courtand w as r emoved bythe def endantt o t he 1 Un i t e d S t a t e s Di s t r i c tCo u r tf o rt h e Ea s t e r n Di s t r i c to f P e n n s y l v a n i a p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1441. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1332, a n d w e h a v e a p p e lla te ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . 3 atw hi ch Feder al K emperat t empt ed t o es t abl i s h t hatM r s . Sam pathacha rw as notdead. T he j ur yfound forpl ai nt i ff on the br eac h of contr actcl ai m , and Feder al K empernow appea l s , as s er t i ng var i ous err or s bythe D i s t r i ctC our tattr i al . W e fi nd no err or s m er i t i ng a n e w t r i a l , a n d we t h e r e f o r e a f f i r m. 1 I . BA CKGROUND B e c a u s e w e w ri te o n ly f o r t h e p a rt ie s , o u r s u m m a ry o f th e f a c ts is a b b re v ia te d . P l ai nti ff an d h i s w i fe i m m i grat ed to Ph i l adelphi a from Indi a i n 1 97 2. In the 1 99 0' s, M rs . S a m p a th a c h a r d e v e lo p e d sig n s o f d e p re ss io n in re sp o n se to th e d e a th o f h e r e ld e rly m ot herand l at ert he dea t h of a y oung I ndi an guru w hom s he cons i der ed hers pi r i tual advi s or . B etw een 1995 a nd 1999, M r s . Sam pathacha rs ecur ed $10. 5 m i l l i on i n l i fe i ns ur ance fr om s even di ffe r enti ns ur ance compani es . A m ong t hes e w as a $1 mi l l i on pol i cyfr om Feder al K emper . T hatpol i cybeca m e i ncont es t abl e i n 1997, s o t hatcover age coul d notbe cont es t ed bas ed on s ui ci de orbas ed on fa l s e s t at ement s i n t he appl i cat i on. A ccor di ng t o Feder al K emper , M r s . Sam pathacha ri ncl uded mat er i al l i es abouther i ncome and netw or t h i n s ever al of the appl i cat i ons forl i fe i ns ur ance . I n February1997, t h e S a m p a t h a c h a r s f

i l e d f o rb a n k ru p t c y. In 2 0 0 1 , the S a m p a th a c h a rs m o v e d f ro m P h ilad e lp h ia b a c k to In d ia. A c c o rd in g to4

pl ai nt i ff, M r s . Sam pathacha runexpec t edl yl eftthei rhom e nea rB angal or e, I ndi a at4: 30 i n t he morni ng on O ct ober17, 2001, carr y i ng not hi ng exce ptthe cl othes s he w as w ear i ng. Pl ai nt i ff r epor t ed the di s appea r ance t o t he pol i ce a nd offe r ed a r ew ar d. O n O ct ober28, p lain tiff w a s in f o rm e d b yth e p o lice th a t M rs. S a m p a th a c h a r h a d c h e c k e d in to a h o tel in D ev ap ray ag , Ind ia, a v il lage o n the G an g es R iver a b o u t 25 0 0 k il o m eters f rom p lai n ti ff ’s hom e. Pl ai nt i ff’ s r el at i ves s ear ched f orM r s . Sam pathacha ri n D evapr ay ag, and w hen s he c o u ld n o t b e f

o u n d , th e yh ir e d ra f

te rs to s e a rc h f

o r h e r b o d yin th e G a n g e s R iv e r. A par t i al l ydecompose d femal e bodyw as di s cover ed, and pl ai nt i ff’ s nephew i dent i fi ed the bodyas M r s . Sam pathacha r . Pl ai nt i ff a nd hi s br other - i n- l aw then tr avel ed t o D evapr ay ag a n d a ls o id e n tif

ie d th e b o d y . A pos t m or t em exam i nat i on r evea l ed thatthe bodydi d nothave a ut erus , w hi ch w as cons i s t entw i t h t he fa ctt hatM r s . Sam pathacha rhad under gone a hy s t er ect om y . Feder al K emperal l eges , how ever , t hatt he bodydi d have ova r i es and fa l l opi an tubes and that t here w as no h y st erect om yscar , and that these facts w ere notcon si st ent w i t h M rs . Sam pathacha r ’ s m edi cal r ecor ds . Feder al K emperal s o al l eges thatthe dent al i nform at i on i n the post m ort em reportw as not consi st ent w i t h M rs . S am pathachar’ s dental recor ds. Pl ai nt i ff ha d t he bodycr emat ed fol l ow i ng the pos t m or t em exam i nat i on, and an I ndi an d e a th c e rt if

ic a te w a s o b ta in e d . F e d e ra l K e m p e r n o w a ss e rts th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in (1 ) f a ili n g to re q u ire in t he j ur yi ns t ruct i ons and ver di cts heetthatthe j urydet erm i ne w hetherthe bodypul l edT he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatPenns y l vani a l aw w as appl i cabl e t o t hi s cas e, and 2 n e ith e r p a rt ya p p e a ls th a t f in d in g h e re . O n t hi s poi nt , t he ver di ctform i ncl uded the fol l ow i ng i nt err ogat ory : ( 1) “D o y ou fi nd 3 b ya p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f

t h e e v i d e n c e t h a tPa n n a t h p u rJ a y l a k s h mi Sa mpa t h a c h a ri s d e a d ?” Feder al K emperpr opos ed the fol l ow i ng al t ernat i ve: “D o y ou fi nd thatK akkada s an Sam pathacha rhas pr oven bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatthe bodyr etr i eved f r o m t h e Gan g e s Ri v e ro n Nov e mbe r6 , 2 0 0 1 was h i s wi f e , Pa n n a t h p u rSa mpa t h a c h a r ?” 5 fr om G anges R i verw as i n fac tM r s . Sam pathacha r ; ( 2) r efus i ng t o admi tattr i al t ax r etur ns , evi dence r el at ed t o pr i orbankrupt cypr ocee di ngs , and fi nanci al m i s s t at ement s by M r s . Sam pathacha ri n herappl i cat i ons forl i fe i ns ur ance ; and ( 3) admi t t i ng attr i al the d e a th c e rt if

ic a te a n d e x p e rt te s tim o n yb ya f o re n s ic d e n tis t. I I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . I dent i t y of

t he B ody P ul l ed F rom t he R i ver Feder al K emperar gues t hatunderPenns y l vani a l aw , the j uryi ns t ruct i ons and the 2 ver di ctform us ed att r i al s houl d have r equi r ed the j uryt o s peci fi cal l ydet erm i ne w hether t he bodypul l ed fr om t he G anges R i verw as thatof M r s . Sam pathacha r , r atherthan s i m p l yr e q u i r i n g t h e j u r yt o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e rMr s . S a m p a t h a c h a rw a s d e a d . We 3 con si der the legal corr ect ness of juryi nst ruct i on s and v erdi ctform s de novo . See U ni t ed St at es v. A nt i co, 275 F. 3d 245, 255 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ; U ni t ed St at es v. St i ger , 413 F. 3d 1 1 8 5 , 1 1 9 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). Feder al K emperpr ovi des no s uppor tfori t s cl ai m of err ori n t he j uryi ns t ruct i ons and ver di ctform . A pl ai nt i ff a s s er t i ng a br eac h of contr actcl ai m underPenns y l vani a l aw m us tes t abl i s h t hr ee e l ement s : “( 1) t he exi s t ence of a c ontr act , i ncl udi ng i t s es s ent i alU n d e r th e c o n tra c t, pla in tiff w a s a lso re q u ire d to su b m it d u e p ro o f o f h is w if e ’s d e a th 4 t o Feder al K emper , and the D i s t r i ctC our ts epar at el yas ked the j uryt o det erm i ne w hether t hi s r equi r ementw as s at i s fi ed. T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i nt err ogat oryand j uryi ns t ruct i ons on th is p o in t a re n o t c h a lle n g e d h e re . M oreove r, given t hat pl ai nti ff’s cas e attri al res t ed en t i rel yon evidence thatM rs . 5 Sam pathacha rdr ow ned i n t he G anges R i verand thatthe bodypul l ed fr om the r i verw as her s , w e ca n r eas onabl yas s um e, bas ed on the j ury ’ s ver di ct , thatthe j uryconcl uded that t h e b o d y p u l l e d f

r o m t h e r i v e rw a s i n f

a c tM r s . S a m p a t h a c h a r ’ s b o d y. 6 term s, (2) a b rea ch o f a d u tyim p o sed b ythe c o n tr ac t[, ] an d (3) resu lt an t dam ag es.” W are v. R odal e Pr es s , I nc. , 322 F. 3d 218, 225 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . H er e, Feder al K emperdi d notdi s put e the exi s t ence of the contr actand t he appl i cabl e damages w er e noti n ques t i on. T he ce ntr al i s s ue attr i al , then, w as w hether Feder al K emperbr eac hed i t s dut yunderthe contr actbyfai l i ng t o payl i fe i ns ur ance benef i t s t o t he pl ai nt i ff. U ndert he contr act , paym entw as due onl yupon t he dea t h of the i ns ur ed, and Feder al K emperbas ed i t s defe ns e on the as s ert i on thatM r s . Sam pathacha r w as notdead. T hus , pl ai nt i ff’ s bur den w as t o pr ove t o t he j urybya pr eponder ance of the evi dence t hatM r s . Sam pathacha rw as dead. T hi s r equi r ementw as ful l ydes cr i bed t o t he 4 j ur yi n bot h t he j ur yi ns t ruct i ons and the ver di ctform . T he D i s t r i ctC our tther efor e di d not erri n r efus i ng t o r equi r e the j ur yt o m ake a s epar at e fi ndi ng thatthe bodyfound i n t he G an g es R iver w as th at of M rs. S am p atha ch ar. 5 B . T he D i s t ri ct C ourt ’ s E x cl usi on of E vi dence N ext , Feder al K emperar gues thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed attr i al i n excl udi ng: ( 1) evidence o f plai nti ff’s 1997 ban kruptcyproceed i ng s; (2) evidence o f fi nan ci al fal se7

s t at ement s m ade byM r s . Sam pathacha ri n herappl i cat i ons t o othercompani es forl i fe in su ra n c e ; an d (3 ) p lain tiff ’s ta x re tu rn s f o r 1 9 9 7 a n d 1 9 9 8 , w h ich w e re p a rtiallyp a id in 2 0 0 0 an d ind icated that the S am p atha ch ars w ere h av ing fin an cial diff iculti es. T h is C o u rt r evi ew s a D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o admi torexcl ude evi dence forabus e of di s cr et i on. In re M e rr itt L o g a n , In c ., 9 0 1 F .2 d 3 4 9 , 3 5 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). U n d e r th e F e d e ra l R u les o f E v id e n c e , ev id e n c e o f

a p e rso n ’s a c ts is n o t ad m iss ib le “t o pr ove the cha r act erof a pe r s on i n or dert o s how act i on i n conform i t yther ew i t h, ” but ma yb e a d mi s s i b l e t o p r o v e mo t i v e o rp r e p a r a t i o n , o rth e e x i s t e n c e o f a p l a n . F e d . R. E vi d. 404( b) . E vi dence i s notadmi s s i bl e unl es s i ti s r el evant , m eani ng thati thas “any t endenc yt o m ake the exi s t ence of anyfac tthati s of cons equenc e t o t he det erm i nat i on of t h e a c t i o n mo r e p r o b a b l e o rl e s s p r o b a b l e th a n i two u l d b e wi t h o u tth e e v i d e n c e . ” F e d . R. E v id . 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 . R e lev a n t ev id e n c e m a yb e e x c lu d e d , h o w e v e r, if “ its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is s ubs t ant i al l yout w ei ghed byt he dange rof unfa i rpr ej udi ce, confus i on of the i s s ues , or m i sl eading t he jury , or bycon si derat i on s of un du e delay , w ast e of ti m e, or need l ess p re s e n ta tio n o f

c u m u la tiv e e v id e n c e .” F e d . R . E v id . 4 0 3 . H ere , the e x clud ed ev iden ce d id h av e so m e ten d en cyto su p p o rtF ed era l K em p er’s al l egat i on of a f

r audul ents cheme, s ugges t i ng thatthe Sampat hacha r s w er e i n fi nanci al t r oubl e i n t he l at e 1990s and thatM r s . Sam pathacha rw as t aki ng pai ns t o col l ectl i fe i ns ur ance pol i ci es w hi l e hi di ng herfi nanci al pr obl ems. W e not e i ni t i al l y , how ever , that t he us e of ba nkrupt cyevi dence t o i ndi cat e fi nanci al di ffi cul t i es has been di s appr oved of8

b yso m e c o u rt s. S ee , e.g., U n it ed S tat es v . B en sim o n , 1 7 2 F . 3 d 1 1 2 1 , 1 1 2 9 (9th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . R e e d , 7 0 0 F . 2 d 6 3 8 , 6 4 2 - 4 3 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 3 ) . M o r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y, all o f th e e x clud ed ev iden ce h ad a sig n ifi ca n t po tential fo r i m p rop erlyp rejud ici n g the ju ry a g a in st th e p lain tiff

a n d M rs. S a m p a th a c h a r. N o n e th e les s, th e D istric t C o u rt d id p e rm it r el at ed evi dence , i ncl udi ng t he numberof pol i ci es M r s . Sam pathacha rappl i ed forand their do ll ar a m o u n ts, an d fin an cial i n fo rm ati o n ab o u t th e S am p atha ch ars f o r th e tw o y ea rs pr i ort o M r s . Sam pathacha r ’ s death. W e di s cern no err ori n r egar d t o t he exc l uded evi dence . A bus e of di s cr et i on i s a hi ghl ydefe r ent i al s t andar d, underw hi ch w e w i l l r ever s e a D istric t C o u rt’s f

in d in g a s to th e re lativ e p ro b a tiv e a n d p re ju d icia l v a lu e o f

e v id e n c e o n ly w h ere the d istri ct co u rt ’s “a n aly sis an d resu lt ing co n clus ion [is] ‘arbitraryo r i rrati o n al. ’” U ni t ed St at es v. U ni ver s al R ehabi l i t at i on Ser vs . , I nc. , 205 F. 3d 657, 665 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T hatr equi r ementi s cl ear l ynotm ether e, and w e hol d t hatthe D i s t r i ct C o u rt d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n in e x c lu d in g th e e v id e n c e a t is s u e . C . T he D i s t ri ct C ourt ’ s A dm i s s i on of E vi dence L a stly , F e d e ra l K e m p e r a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in a d m itt in g a d e a th c e rt if ic a te f ro m In d ia , a n d in a llo w in g th e e x p e rt te s tim o n yo f D r. L in d a H im m e lb e rg e r, a for ens i c dent i s t . T hes e admi s s i ons ar e r evi ew ed forabus e of di s cr et i on. M err i t tL ogan, 9 0 1 F .2 d a t 3 5 9 . Feder al K emperas s er t s t hatthe dea t h cert i fi cat e w as notauthent i cat ed, as r equi r ed9

byt he Feder al R ul e of Evi dence . Pl ai nt i ff a r gues thatthe admi s s i on w as pr operunder R ule 901, w hich provides that “[t ]he r equ i rem ent of authent i cat i on or i den t i fi cat i on as a condi t i on pr ece dentt o admi s s i bi l i t yi s s at i s fi ed byevi dence s uffi ci entt o s uppor ta fi ndi ng th a t th e m a tter in q u e stio n is w h a t it s p ro p o n e n t cla im s.” F e d . R . E v id . 9 0 1 (a ). T h a t R u le a lso p ro v id e s th a t, as to p u b lic re c o rd s o r re p o rts, th e a d m iss ib ili tyre q u ire m e n t is s at i s fi ed by“[e ] vi dence t hata w r i t i ng author i zed byl aw t o be r ecor ded orfi l ed and i n fac t rec o rde d o r fil ed in a p u b li c o ff ice . . . is from the p u b li c o ff ice w h ere it em s o f th is na ture ar e kept . ” R ul e 901( b) ( 7) . I n M ay2004, a depos i t i on w as t aken i n I ndi a of M adhav M ew arG uru, w ho t es t i fi ed thathe w or ks i n t he D evapr ay ag t ow n ar ea c om m i t t ee, w hi ch m a in tain s th e o f

f icia l d e a th re c o rd s f

o r th e a re a . G u ru sta ted th a t h e iss u e d th e d e a th cert i fi cat e forM r s . Sam pathacha racc or di ng t o pr ot ocol . H e not ed thatthe exe cut i ve offi ceri s s uppos ed t o i s s ue the ce r t i fi cat e, butthatw hen the exe cut i ve off i ceri s not present , he is sues the cert i fi cat e. B ased on this evidence, the D i stri ctC ou rtdid not abuse its d is c re tio n in a d m ittin g th e d e a th c e rt if ic a te . A s fort he for ens i c dent i s t , D r . H i m m el ber gert es t i fi ed attr i al thata t ooth count perform ed d uri ng t he p ost -m ort em exam i nati on of the bo dyw as not r el i able, and al so s t at ed thatt her e w er e ce r t ai n s i m i l ar i t i es betw een the t eeth i n t he pos t - m or t em phot os and M r s . Sam pathacha r ’ s t eeth as s een i n herdent al r ecor ds . Feder al K emperar gues thatt he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have e xcl uded D r . H i m m el ber ger ’ s t es t i m onyunderFeder al R ul e of E v id e n c e 7 0 2 . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s in terp re ted th a t ru le to re q u ire th e trial c o u rt to10

m ake a pr el i m i narydet erm i nat i on as t o pr offe r ed expe r tt es t i m ony“w hetherthe r eas oni ng orm ethodol ogyunder l y i ng t he t es t i m onyi s s ci ent i fi cal l yval i d and [] w hetherthat r eas oni ng orm ethodol ogypr oper l ycan be appl i ed t o t he fa ct s i n i s s ue. ” D aubertv. M err el l D ow Phar m . , I nc. , 509 U . S. 579, 592- 93 ( 1993) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned t hatD r . H i m m el ber ger ’ s t es t i m onyw as admi s s i bl e underthats t andar d and w oul d be u se f u l to th e ju ry . W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in th is re g a rd . I V. CO NC L US I ON F o r t h e re a s o n s s ta te d a b o v e , w e a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .